Sitting in the direct sunlight, inside that stadium does suck. I did it for 4 years, including the Pittsburgh game, before I moved to the shady south end zone. But for late games (3:00 or later) it is not bad in there with the roof open. Even for night games in August, which they've had 4 open roof pre-season games before, including the 1st 2 they ever played in that building.

As for the noise, I've heard it as loud with the roof open as I've heard it with it closed. With the overhang Reliant has, the roof makes no difference.

That said, I don't care what they do with the roof. I don't go to a game to look at the roof or sky, I go to watch a game on the field below. But if you are going to build a stadium that has a retractable roof, it's kinda silly that you never open the damn thing. Why didn't they just make it a dome?

I wish they would open it more often. 80* might be a bit warm, especially on the sunny side of the field, but if it's in the high 50's to mid 70's, open the damned thing. Outside football is awesome!!!

I don't care if you silly boinkers in the stands are comfy, it would be much hotter on field for the players. lol

__________________
I want to be able to recognize the difference between a "want" and a "need" and then I want to be satisfied with getting a need

I don't care if you silly boinkers in the stands are comfy, it would be much hotter on field for the players. lol

Wow...resorting to name calling are we? Well, those silly boinking players get their salaries paid by silly boinkers like me. I say let them sweat!!! Besides, the other team will be hot, too and they aren't used to it like the Texans are. Capers told me so way back in '05. Right before he tried to overheat the Steelers. Hmmm....what was the outcome of that game again???

__________________
"We cannot order men see the truth or prohibit them from indulging in error."

The hurricane Ike season wasn't so bad, granted I believe we only had one home game to deal with during September with the roof open. Otherwise it was actually pretty nice, at least up in 506 where I'm at.

The four NFL teams with retractable-roof stadiums have chosen to play almost twice as many games with the roofs closed than with them open. That lone statistic raises the question of whether the convertible tops, such as the one planned for a new Atlanta stadium to be partially funded with public dollars, are worth the increased cost over a fixed dome.

As usual, the taxpayer gets soaked at the enrichment of the owners. I'm all for people getting rich, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

If an idea is good, invest your own damn money in it unless you plan on making me an investor and giving me a piece back. If the retractable roof wasn't good enough for McNair to invest his own funds into, why was it good enough for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

It should have been made into a dome, the rodeo would have been happy and that's that. OR it should have been made open air, and the rodeo can go find their own stadium.

As usual, the taxpayer gets soaked at the enrichment of the owners. I'm all for people getting rich, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

If an idea is good, invest your own damn money in it unless you plan on making me an investor and giving me a piece back. If the retractable roof wasn't good enough for McNair to invest his own funds into, why was it good enough for the taxpayer to pick up the tab?

It should have been made into a dome, the rodeo would have been happy and that's that. OR it should have been made open air, and the rodeo can go find their own stadium.

Why is that too much to ask?

I'm pretty sure the retractable roof was an NFL requirement at the time of purchasing the team.

I will look for it.

p.s. agree completely with you about taxpayer funds paying for billionaire playgrounds, but that's another subject for another day...

__________________"Football is only a diversion." ~ Houston Texans, Inc.

p.s. agree completely with you about taxpayer funds paying for billionaire playgrounds, but that's another subject for another day...

Each deal needs to be examined individually and I think y'all are unfairly presenting the process.

First off these deals are all approved through the local rules and/or populace. But y'all are acting like the city takes a big fat check over to McNair, hands it to him and says hope you make another billion, we don't expect anything in return. The cities are partners in these deals. They sit down with all the other potential partners/investors, let McNair pitch them that it would be a mutually beneficial relationship and then if they judge it would be, partner up with him.

I'm pretty sure the retractable roof was an NFL requirement at the time of purchasing the team.

I will look for it.

p.s. agree completely with you about taxpayer funds paying for billionaire playgrounds, but that's another subject for another day...

I believe that just before Reliant was to be built, the NFL made it known that they thought that inclement weather made things very unpredictable for patronage of a Super Bowl and therefore would not be seeking to hand out venues to those with open air stadiums (this policy has only now just been recently broken with the upcoming NY SB). I believe that the Texans knew that in order to be considered candidates for any SB, the stadium to be built would have to be covered............not necessarily with a retractable roof, though.......to have a moving roof was just a way for the Texans to make another unique "first"/splash like the Astrodome was in its day.........and relatively even more expensive. But who cared..........we were so excited just to get a team again, we tax payers would not mind getting screwed........a "little."

Each deal needs to be examined individually and I think y'all are unfairly presenting the process.

First off these deals are all approved through the local rules and/or populace. But y'all are acting like the city takes a big fat check over to McNair, hands it to him and says hope you make another billion, we don't expect anything in return. The cities are partners in these deals. They sit down with all the other potential partners/investors, let McNair pitch them that it would be a mutually beneficial relationship and then if they judge it would be, partner up with him.

Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?

The point is that taxpayers should not be "partners" in entertainment complexes that only serve to enrich the owners and entertainers.

How much do we still owe on the Astrodome while we contemplate tearing it down...at taxpayers' expense?

Our public funds are better served in other areas. Schools, infrastructure, luring large businesses to our city to provide jobs and related support companies.

We can agree to disagree, but in end, if stadiums were such a great idea, private money would build them. But owners know they will not reap the same rewards as they could if they convince cities that their fate is directly related to professional sports.

Please tell me how the following is a good idea:

Quote:

Billionaire Gets New Sports Arena in Bankrupt Detroit

The headline juxtaposition boggles the mind. You have, on one day, “Detroit Files Largest Municipal Bankruptcy in History.” Then on the next, you have “Detroit Plans to Pay For New Red Wings Hockey Arena Despite Bankruptcy.”

Yes, the very week Michigan Governor Rick Snyder granted a state-appointed emergency manager’s request to declare the Motor City bankrupt, the Tea Party governor gave a big thumbs-up to a plan for a new $650 million Detroit Red Wings hockey arena. Almost half of that $650 million will be paid with public funds.

This is actually happening. City services are being cut to the bone. Fighting fires, emergency medical care and trash collection are now precarious operations. Retired municipal workers will have their $19,000 in annual pensions dramatically slashed. Even the artwork in the city art museum will be sold off piece by piece. This will include a mural by the great radical artist Diego Rivera that’s a celebration of what the auto industry would look like in a socialist future. As Stephen Colbert said, the leading bidder will be “the museum of irony.”

They don’t have money to keep the art on the walls. They do have $283 million to subsidize a new arena for Red Wings owner and founder of America’s worst pizza-pizza chain, Little Caesar’s, Mike Ilitch, whose family is worth $2.7 billion dollars. (“Friends! Romans! Countrymen! Lend me your pensions!”)

Why don't we do that for large manufacturing companies that actually bring jobs to the city? We could finance their buildings for them, give tax breaks and whatever else they need to ensure a 30 year lease and prosperity for the area?

The point is that taxpayers should not be "partners" in entertainment complexes that only serve to enrich the owners and entertainers.

How much do we still owe on the Astrodome while we contemplate tearing it down...at taxpayers' expense?

Our public funds are better served in other areas. Schools, infrastructure, luring large businesses to our city to provide jobs and related support companies.

We can agree to disagree, but in end, if stadiums were such a great idea, private money would build them. But owners know they will not reap the same rewards as they could if they convince cities that their fate is directly related to professional sports.

Please tell me how the following is a good idea:

This is a great argument, and I'm all for it, and in the perfect world this would be the case. But Houston has already fought this fight once and lost it with the Oilers. The truth is, cities compete against each other for major sports franchises. I don't know if there is a positive economic impact of being a city with an NFL team (or other major sports for that matter). I imagine there is one, but I don't know what it is. At the very least, I would imagine that it increases a city's profile and its ability to attract other business. Is it worth hundreds of millions of $$$? The voting public says yes. I wish there was a study that told us what the reality is.